for religious folk: do you believe in divine intervention?

[Banquo's Ghost]

When I was a theist I never really believed in divine intervention. Especially karma like intervention. Think of all the people around the globe that do sick atrocities and never ever have to pay for it (Escaped nazi's come to mind). If god really cares about you hurting someones feelings, and he punishes you for that while a mass murderer like Mugabe is still in his palace, then he has his priorities messed up.

I think this is the crucial point.

Any deity that allows itself to interfere in any way with the lives of its creation must be alid open to the charge of culpability in evil. A god that breaks a laptop fan yet ignores the suffering of even a single child, is utterly amoral. The old excuse that "we don't know God's plans" does not absolve said deity from responsibility.

The ancients dealt with this by imagining gods that were, for the most part, entirely selfish creatures prone to human lusts and conflicts. That characterisation makes some sense.

A loving, personal god cannot have the power to interfere in even the smallest way. The only consistent explanation for such a god would be that it set in motion a creation based on free will and let the clockwork run. To me, that's why Jesus' divinity must be questioned: why should some people have been granted freedom from their sufferings through miracles, and not others. Not through faith, because there is plenty of people since who have believed but still suffered - they were just unlucky, born in the wrong time.

When millions of children die in pitiful poverty of disease and starvation, why would any god worth the name break a hard drive because someone was slightly beastly one day?

[Rhyfelwyr]

@hooah: I feel the exact same way, so often similar things have happened to me and there is no way that it is coincidence. Sometimes if I get overconfident and start thinking I'm not doing anything wrong, then I'll get beaten back on track and reminded that thankfully, doing good doesn't come from me, but from God.

Anyway, God does not intervene in every matter simply because it is what we asked for. Not just Adam, but all of us. I know some people say that we should not be punished for one man's mistakes, but the fact is that if we really accepted God then we would all be born Christian/religious and we would never do a single bad deed in our life. We all make the same mistake as Adam in asking for a Godless world, ever since we commit our first sin we run from God because we fear the judgement.

Thankfully, God does interevene in this world, because it is by that intervention that He transforms us. With the beloved idol of free will, many people complain that God uses them as puppets, and that they must be able to come to Him by their own merit, as if they were born good and did not need a saviour in the first place! They complain about Godlessness, when God does not intervene in every affair of our world; but then they also complain about Godliness, because it tramples over their beloved idol.

God will intervene to gather his sheep, as the scripture says. That doesn't mean it makes things easy for them in this life, far from it. Part of what it is all about is facing persecution, look at the history of the Jews for example. Crucially, they will be gathered together in the end, and now they have their state in Israel. The same parallels exist in becoming a Christian.

[Garnier]

Anyway, God does not intervene in every matter simply because it is what we asked for. Not just Adam, but all of us. I know some people say that we should not be punished for one man's mistakes, but the fact is that if we really accepted God then we would all be born Christian/religious and we would never do a single bad deed in our life.

This doesn't make sense to me, maybe I'm reading it the wrong way. I don't think any of us can know God so fully on earth that we never do anything against His nature. I consider "bad" to mean against the nature of God, because from what I know of God he is the very essense of "good". By far the greatest enjoyment and satisfaction I have in life is from being like God with other people, being merciful or kind or understanding.

Regarding free will, that is one part of the nature of God that is so important. God freely decided to give us free will so we could choose whether to love him or not. Free will isn't a bad thing or against God's nature at all. Would you rather have a wife who was predestined and essentially "forced" to love you, or a wife who has fallings-out with you but still chooses to love you. I think God feels the same way.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This doesn't make sense to me, maybe I'm reading it the wrong way. I don't think any of us can know God so fully on earth that we never do anything against His nature. I consider "bad" to mean against the nature of God, because from what I know of God he is the very essense of "good". By far the greatest enjoyment and satisfaction I have in life is from being like God with other people, being merciful or kind or understanding.

I agree completely with that. I'm not sure what bit I said that you disagree with, its hard to make myself clear on these complicated issues.

Regarding free will, that is one part of the nature of God that is so important. God freely decided to give us free will so we could choose whether to love him or not. Free will isn't a bad thing or against God's nature at all. Would you rather have a wife who was predestined and essentially "forced" to love you, or a wife who has fallings-out with you but still chooses to love you. I think God feels the same way.

Removing choice doesn't necessarily mean that we are forced to do things against our nature. When I argue against free will, I mean that everything we do has been seen beforehand, and so we cannot act without that framework of events. It doesn't actually mean we do anything against our will, but rather we had no choice to do otherwise. So if a wife was predestined to love her husband, she would not love him because she was forced to, but she was always going to be inclined to do so anyway. It is inevitable, Mr. Anderson.

[Hax]

That's where the Buddhist system of belief explains everything. If you're suffering in this life through no fault of your own, despite all the good things you've done, it must be because of bad things you've done in a previous life. Which of course can't be disproven. And thanks to the nature of incarnations, even cruelty against animals fits neatly into this system. Have any other belief systems tried to incorporate this catch-all explanation into their beliefs?

What specific system of Buddhism is this? Mahayana or Theravada?

Being a Buddhist/Shintoïst myself, I strongly disagree with this. I do not believe in "Divine Intervention", what I do believe in is positive thought and the fact that good and bad is different for everyone. A breaking laptop could be seen as a punishment, but also as an opportunity to go out and hang out more with friends or family. It all depends on how you look at the situation. With that in mind, there is no such thing as punishment. And punishment because of something you did in a previous life, for which people should not be made to suffer. It does not seem righteous at all. And animal cruelty is even worse, in my opinion.

Rhyfelwyr, if a predestined fates exist, what's the point of free will?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Rhyfelwyr, if a predestined fates exist, what's the point of free will?

I don't care for free will. Does not having free will make you a puppet? No.

To go with the earlier example with the woman loving her husband... she did not have a choice to do otherwise, not as many people imagine 'choice' as being. There were countless factors working inside her head which led to her loving her husband. She was never not going to love her husband, it was inevitable.

We aren't God's puppets, but we are not our own master either, we cannot act against our natures. That woman loved her husband because it was her nature to do so, there's no random element of choice.

That's why I say we have a 'will', but not a 'free will'.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think this is the crucial point.

Any deity that allows itself to interfere in any way with the lives of its creation must be alid open to the charge of culpability in evil. A god that breaks a laptop fan yet ignores the suffering of even a single child, is utterly amoral. The old excuse that "we don't know God's plans" does not absolve said deity from responsibility.

The ancients dealt with this by imagining gods that were, for the most part, entirely selfish creatures prone to human lusts and conflicts. That characterisation makes some sense.

A loving, personal god cannot have the power to interfere in even the smallest way. The only consistent explanation for such a god would be that it set in motion a creation based on free will and let the clockwork run. To me, that's why Jesus' divinity must be questioned: why should some people have been granted freedom from their sufferings through miracles, and not others. Not through faith, because there is plenty of people since who have believed but still suffered - they were just unlucky, born in the wrong time.

When millions of children die in pitiful poverty of disease and starvation, why would any god worth the name break a hard drive because someone was slightly beastly one day?

I think there's a lot to be said for this. However, within the basic framework of free will there might still be some play for divine intervention.

If God only intervenes in small ways then he can't stop one particular diaster, but he might be able to lessen the impact for the greatest number of people.

For example, I don't believe God would usually make it so that you were not in a building during an earthquake, but he might make you stand a foot to the lef so that a structuaral beam doesn't crush you. I think very little things, little nudges, are all he usually does. So, with the Biblical miracles it's a question of you having made the choices to be in the right place at the right time. Beyond that, the miracles themselves are explicitely stated to be signs, not acts of charity. Jesus eliviates the suffering of the few so that the many enter Heaven. Beyond that it could be argued that people do recieve miracles when they have faith. Many people believe this, and even in my own young life I have seen things that make it impossible for me to discount.

[Jolt]

Yes.

[Kralizec]

I'm an atheist, so I obviously don't believe in divine intervention.

To jews and christians: why are there countless of examples of divine intervention in the Torah/Bible, and why don't they happen today (or at least on the same scale)
Going by the Bible, in Amsterdam or Las Vegas the weather should be fire and brimstone every day of the week. If you're a really conservative jew you could even make a case for Tel Aviv.

Edit: just remembered the part about there supposedly not being any righteous people in Sodom or Gomorrah. Well, the point still stands.

[Samurai Waki]

I don't like the idea of fate since it seems like you could blame too many things on fate, and remain guiltless. You could say that it was fate that drove you to murder your wife, but then again realistically you have the choice not too.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't like the idea of fate since it seems like you could blame too many things on fate, and remain guiltless. You could say that it was fate that drove you to murder your wife, but then again realistically you have the choice not too.

There's a bigger issue. If God is good, and yet directs all our actions, ordaining both our joy and our suffering; why does He give us even the impression of Free Will?

How can a Good God lie to his creation?

[Pannonian]

I don't like the idea of fate since it seems like you could blame too many things on fate, and remain guiltless. You could say that it was fate that drove you to murder your wife, but then again realistically you have the choice not too.

Good conservatives who hate liberals and socialists who blame society for their own misbehaviour should also steer clear of any religious beliefs that depend on outside factors to explain their fortunes and misfortunes. Free will, and practical capacity to enact it, is the greatest factor in any individual's actions.

[Fixiwee]

Is there free will in the first place? Schopenhauer pops into my mind with: "Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills".

[Rhyfelwyr]

Is there free will in the first place? Schopenhauer pops into my mind with: "Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills".

Exactly. You are what you are, you act as your nature leads you to. In every single decision we take, the outcome is not up to chance, or some free will choice. We will always make the decisions we do, simply because by a combination of our brianpower/experience/ideas/etc we will always take a certain route in any given situation. There's no random element, no freedom to do otherwise.

I still don't see why this makes us puppets, we have a will and that makes us individuals.

[Pannonian]

I think this is the crucial point.

Any deity that allows itself to interfere in any way with the lives of its creation must be alid open to the charge of culpability in evil. A god that breaks a laptop fan yet ignores the suffering of even a single child, is utterly amoral. The old excuse that "we don't know God's plans" does not absolve said deity from responsibility.

The ancients dealt with this by imagining gods that were, for the most part, entirely selfish creatures prone to human lusts and conflicts. That characterisation makes some sense.

A loving, personal god cannot have the power to interfere in even the smallest way. The only consistent explanation for such a god would be that it set in motion a creation based on free will and let the clockwork run. To me, that's why Jesus' divinity must be questioned: why should some people have been granted freedom from their sufferings through miracles, and not others. Not through faith, because there is plenty of people since who have believed but still suffered - they were just unlucky, born in the wrong time.

When millions of children die in pitiful poverty of disease and starvation, why would any god worth the name break a hard drive because someone was slightly beastly one day?

That's where the Buddhist system of belief explains everything. If you're suffering in this life through no fault of your own, despite all the good things you've done, it must be because of bad things you've done in a previous life. Which of course can't be disproven. And thanks to the nature of incarnations, even cruelty against animals fits neatly into this system. Have any other belief systems tried to incorporate this catch-all explanation into their beliefs?